Our team of litigators collectively has decades of experience in trial and appellate litigation, with particular expertise in litigation involving the federal government. We know how the federal government will defend against actions because we have done just that, either as attorneys for the Department of Justice in high-stakes constitutional and administrative law matters, or as in-house counsel for the agencies being sued. In private practice, the members of our team have won cases of enormous public import, including multiple victories at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Our approach to litigation is client-centric. We provide candid pre-litigation assessments on the strength of clients’ potential claims, the risks and benefits of bringing suit, and the likely costs of litigation. We do not bring lawsuits to generate headlines for our firm. We file suit only when we believe it is the best option available to our clients.

In the short time since we launched our firm, we have achieved litigation success in a number of matters, including:

• Child Trends v. Dep't of Education, No. 8:25-cv-1154 (D. Md.): We represented two educational research organizations in challenging the Department of Education's elimination of two statutorily mandated programs, known as the Regional Educational Laboratories and Comprehensive Centers programs, as well as the Department's refusal to spend roughly $200 million in funds appropriated for the programs. We won the case, with the court ordering the Department to re-establish the programs and spend all of the appropriated money before it expired. The Department did not appeal, and it complied with the court’s order by restoring all of the grants and contracts that had been terminated under the programs. 

• Protect Democracy Project v. Office of Management & Budget, No. 1:25-cv-01111 (D.D.C.): Representing Protect Democracy, we successfully challenged OMB’s refusal to comply with a federal law that requires OMB to post its “apportionments” of congressional appropriations online. We won summary judgment at the district court, and the D.C. Circuit unanimously denied the government’s request for a stay pending appeal. As a result, OMB posted the apportionments that it had kept hidden, which revealed novel strategies that OMB has employed to use its apportionments to limit and control agency spending.

• Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence v. Bondi, No. 1:25-cv-00279 (D.R.I.): On behalf of state coalitions against domestic violence and sexual assault, we are challenging new conditions being imposed by the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) on its formula and discretionary grants. Those conditions, which carry the threat of False Claims Act liability, cover topics including diversity, equity, and inclusion, gender ideology, serving undocumented persons, social justice efforts, and interactions with law enforcement. We won a nationwide stay of all of the new conditions pursuant to 5 USC 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act. The government did not appeal, and the case is proceeding in district court.

• Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence v. Kennedy, No. 1:25-cv-00342 (D.R.I.): In a separate suit on behalf of state coalitions against domestic violence and sexual assault, as well as organizations that provide services to the homeless, we are challenging conditions that HHS and HUD are imposing to preclude grantees from promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion and “gender ideology,” and from facilitating elective abortions. After winning a series of temporary restraining orders, the district court granted a preliminary injunction and a nationwide stay of the challenged conditions under 5 USC 705.

• Global Health Council v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00402 (D.D.C.): We represent a group of contractors and grantees bringing suit with respect to the elimination of USAID and State Department foreign aid programs, and those agencies’ refusal to spend foreign assistance appropriations that Congress provided for humanitarian, health, and democracy-promotion purposes. On September 3, 2025, we won a preliminary injunction compelling the agencies to spend roughly $11 billion in appropriations that were set to expire on September 30, 2025. The government subsequently obtained a stay from the Supreme Court with respect to more than $4 billion of these funds that the President had proposed to Congress for rescission, but the injunction remained in effect for the remaining $6.5 billion in expiring funds. As a result of the injunction, the government was forced to obligate that $6.5 billion before it expired. The case remains ongoing.

• Environmental Defense Fund v. Wright, No. 25-cv-12249-WGY (D. Mass.): Representing the Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists, we are bringing claims for violations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) by the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, with respect to their establishment and utilization of a “Climate Working Group.” At the behest of one or both agencies, the group produced a report to call into question the scientific consensus on climate change, and EPA then relied on the group’s report in proposing to rescind its Endangerment Finding on the threats of climate change. The district court granted us summary judgment on the government’s sole defense for why the working group did not qualify as a federal advisory committee, with the court rejecting that defense. District court proceedings remain ongoing.

• Child Trends, Inc. v. Kennedy, No. 8:2025-cv-01479 (D. Md.): When our client learned that HHS was about to terminate seven of its grants, we brought a due process challenge to block HHS from terminating the grants. After we filed the lawsuit and the district court indicated that we would likely succeed in our argument that our client had a due process property interest in its grants, we successfully negotiated a settlement pursuant to which HHS agreed not to terminate any of the client’s grants through the remainder of their budget periods.

• Anchorage School District v. Dep’t of Education, No. 1:25-cv-00347 (D.R.I.): We successfully represented a coalition of school districts, teachers unions, a state PTA, and a nonprofit organization challenging the Department of Education’s unwillingness to release billions of dollars in formula grant funds that must be distributed to local school districts. Shortly after we sued and moved for a preliminary injunction, the Department released the withheld funds that were supposed to have been already released.

• Jones v. Dep’t of Labor, No. 1:25-cv-12653 (D. Mass): We brought a class action suit on behalf of senior citizens who participate in the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP), a program that provides a lifeline to unemployed seniors seeking to transition back into the workforce. We challenged the refusal of the Department of Labor and the Office of Management and Budget to renew and fund the program, as federal law requires. Shortly after we sued and indicated we would seek a preliminary injunction, DOL announced that they would restart the program and release the funds appropriated for it.